It's the economy, stupid: Obama vs. Romney has already begun

Within the context of the American economy, to disagree is a bit naive to say the least. It may have some traction if we were talking about a place like Evans Mills, New York, but we aren't.

This is generally true, but you seem to think that in an economy such as the American economy that it's possible to allocate resources to one group at the expense of another with no negative consequences. This isn't the case.

There is no starving goose.

To speak in real terms (I don't care if you like it), America has a set of core strengths. These include small business, labour, laws, government, education, and resources. To hamstring one for the benefit of another would have dire consequences. To hamstring more than one for the benefit of another would spell certain doom.

If you can't understand this, I don't know what else to tell you other than highly recommending you read a book such as Naked Economics: Understanding the Dismal Science.

Rather than speak in vague terms, why not be more specific? What are these scare resources you're talking about? What are these tough choices you're talking about? What is small business missing? What should government do for small business? What are the current challenges small business is facing?

Try to speak in real terms instead of fabulation.

If you cannot speak about small business, its role in the wider economy, its strengths and weaknesses, and how these strengths and weaknesses relate to the other aspects of the economy and society, then I'm not interested in hearing what you have to say. It would be a waste of time. I meant this thread to be a place to discuss economic issues, not abstract them.

 

But since I always read TFA.
This is a half-truth, by their determination...

And like my favorite scientist likes to say, "Everything's Relative"
It's all in the perspective.

 

Again with the vagueness. What resources? What sacrifices? What allocation? What provision of net good?

Your ideas make me nervous. They start out bombastic and then are "supported" by generalizations.

No, I understand it. It's a failed metaphor.

I've suggested a single-payer system or some other related system that virtually every other developed nation has built. This, however, seems beside the point. Is this all you have? "Obamacare"? You've said little else (or maybe nothing else). Is that it? Is that what Romney should be focusing on to improve the economy? The focus of Romney's economic platform should be either a) repeal "Obamacare," or b) revise or replace "Obamacare" with a single-payer system or something similar?

Are you suggesting that "Obamacare" is the single biggest challenge that small business faces? That's it? Well, they've been running under the program for a while now, and I don't think it necessarily has been that big an issue. What impact do you think it has had? How does it hurt the business climate? Does fixing it require repealing it, or does it simply require revision?

"Obamacare" hasn't solved problems? Are you sure about that? Do you have evidence of this?

Also, I thought you said something about allocating resources. Tell us about that.

First, I'm not entirely sure that Canada is that much more business friendly than the U.S., if at all. The regulation on all levels of government here would probably drive you insane.

Second, our spending included a stimulus during the recession, and now it seems to be going towards an ostensibly sensible deficit reduction (kind of like what Obama wants to do but on a much smaller and shorter scale). This may or may not be a good thing (the recently proposed budget is currently being debated). It depends on the global economy. Canada has legislation regarding balanced budgets (a liberal initiative, as liberals on both sides of the border seem to have better fiscal discipline).

Third, the maximization of our core strengths is something we've done for a long time. It includes ensuring strong support for infrastructure, resource management, social programs/security/welfare, education, and healthcare. This is what makes us strong. This is exactly why I say a nation is more like a flock of geese that lay golden eggs. We tend our flock, and America should too.

Fourth: Have you seen the Tar Sands?! It's an environmental disaster in slow motion! The current budget proposal is a "Trojan horse" that includes provisions for loosening already degraded environmental regulations. Canada is quickly ruining its reputation as responsible stewards of the environment under the Conservatives!

Fifth: What gives you the impression I want the U.S. to fail? Where the fuck did that come from? If anything, I would love the U.S. to borrow strategies from the successes experienced in Canada, Germany, and places like Norway. You know, places that tend their flock of geese that lay golden eggs. (I'll let go of this tired metaphor if you do.)

 

Ace, you're putting up articles in big bold print supporting the rhetoric of your side.
Then adding another from a "fact" finding site in support of it...but when someone notes what was said by the bold print is bullshit.
You ignore the highlighted points from the rebuttal.

Then you state that you haven't read any economist holding the recovery has been weaker & slower than others.
First, there is a recovery, period...that's good. The one in charge, gets credit/blame for good, bad or ugly.
You can't emphasize crediting one...then blame the other...then say that it really doesn't matter...it invalidates your previous arguments.
You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Second, my statement about it being a perspective is right on the money.
I agree, credit/blame is likely irrelevant...but when looking at a recovery or recession and doing a comparison,
then you need to understand why, and bring in everything from all aspects...
in real life, you cannot end at on point, start on another...it's not a race...it's continuous...it blurs together.
So you need to interpret the trends overall.

Do I believe that GW Bush did policies that triggered the down-turn? Not really, he didn't do anything...
he was just continuing the policy most everyone had for awhile, that bubble had many fathers. He was mostly focused on Iraq and Terrorists.

But nor do I believe that Obama is "anti-business" (hyperbole if I ever heard it)
Far from it, he has protected Wall Street and much of industry from the more gruelling punishments that could have happened.
And he has supported the status-quo supporting business to continue and build the momentum of the economy.
Much to the chagrin & annoyance of many liberals who wanted more blood-shed.

If you claim to be fair-minded...give credit, where credit is due.
I don't agree with all of Obama's decisions or policies...but you shouldn't look at everything in negative context.

Right now, like my very politically conservative wife, you are towing the line. (at least if I'm reading your previous posts right)
Arguing for the sake of it and seeing your opponent in Bile-colored glasses.
It's like you're a Yankees fan and you are talking about the Red Sox.

If you're the intellectual from the way you're writing, then call it straight, use no bias. Argue without exaggeration.

 

"Anti-business" is, as always, typical rhetoric. According to those who make such charges, anyone who isn't a free-marketer is "anti-business." American politics is rife with such petty binary thinking. (Though it's certainly not limited to America.)

Obama's record with small business is mixed at worst. Well, what do you expect during a severe recession and a long recovery?

But anti-business? Hardly

Obama has done a few things, including:

• Created an Advanced Manufacturing Fund to invest in peer-reviewed manufacturing processes
• Increased access to capital for minority-owned businesses
• Implemented "Women Owned Business" contracting program
• Expanded loan programs for small businesses
• Raised the small business investment expensing limit to $250,000 through the end of 2009
• In the process of creating a fund for international small and medium enterprises (SME)

There are more, of course.

The thing to note, however, is that this is hardly the first time Obama has been considered anti-business: Why Obama is a pro-business president - FT.com

 

Again, you exaggerate, are inconsistent and ambiguous.

Your business makes 20% margin, employs many...

In an extreme & almost dictatorial government,
I may see a 50% drop in my profit due to instant taxes and/or regulation.
(perhaps Venezuela, where the leader is truly socialist/communist)

But we are not talking about that.

Within the US, which I assume that we are discussing here. (correct me if I'm wrong)
Then it is very unlikely you would ever see this.
When even the most "liberal", "anti-business" administration would be in charge.
(and we're not even talking about the checks on their power/authority)

MAYBE at an extreme, would you see an decrease of margin down to 19%
But even this is doubtful.
You see...I owned a business too...for some years. (So I get it)

You know as well as I do, most regulation is more of an annoyance,
than any fiscal impact...it slows you down...a bit.
Once you've learned the rules, its paperwork, the worst is a fee
and trying to remember to do it.

Taxes perhaps MAY impact you fiscally, but this is a slow progression,
usually with some loophole and write-offs.
But you should also know that the taxes were already established, (unless you live in some imaginary land)
so any increase would be a fraction of the total.
And that most taxes in total are from Federal, State, County and/or City.
So the chance that ONE administration would affect you is likely, but not all.
Again, this is a fraction of the total.

And in business terms, you would be insane to change your business model & patterns
so radically to make up for a 50% margin drop to a bond purchase.
No, you would continue business as usual and adjust prices and/or resources.

In reality, your business would more likely be affected by resource prices
and business drop-off...not through any regulation.
Besides, most federal regulation is inacted to stop an abuse that affects the macroeconomy.
(Businesses fire people because of lack of business or bad decisions, NOT regulation)

See how I use details and underlying principles in realistic terms?
Forget the stats or why...I don't have time.

You claim that Obama's adminstration is "anti-business"
The ONLY thing I've seen that may be seen that way is the pipeline decision. (which I don't agree with)
And this was done likely not under "anti-business" philosophies, but to appease his green base...a temporary political gimme.

Or realistically, doing what the conservatives wanted, cracking down on immigration
which affects all those businesses that hire immigrants for cheap-labor.
But that's good right? Americans get to horde over those newly open jobs. (NOT...most Americans don't go to those jobs, even if unemployed)
And companies, which are doing something illegal are prosecuted now.

Obama's administration has been FAR from anti-business.
The new rules put in place were to control what is basically criminal or neglectful actions,
which put us into recession/the hole in the first place.
But for the most part has been status quo.

Supporting the auto industry is not anti-business
Propping up the banks is not anti-business
Pushing manufacturing is not anti-business
Continuing the Bush tax cuts is not anti-business
Encouraging free trade is not anti-business
Pushing for exports is not anti-business
Calling China on their money manipulation is not anti-business
and so on...

Please name one specific example of anti-business policy or decision
other than those potentially ambiguous ones I named above.

And please don't say asking to get rid of unnecessary subsidies is anti-business.
Oil is making enought profit, which goes right into their stockowners/execs pockets. (not jobs)
And if you are true Laissez Faire champion, then these shouldn't be in place.
If you can't do it on your own, you shouldn't be in business. Right???

Please a realistic and specific example,
showing the Obama administration as anti-business.

 

Wow. Earnings on municipal bonds at 10%?!

Now I've heard it all!

Probably not.

Others have already pointed it out, but I'm still going to say it: Examples would be much better if they were realistic.

 

I thought you were talking municipal bonds. You know, low-risk guaranteed investments. You're actually talking about high-risk bond funds. It's not the same thing.

Stop buying bond funds - The Globe and Mail

A real-estate developer would sooner want to invest in their own projects than hand over the same value to a bond fund. A developer worth their salt would want to take on risk themselves rather than hand it over to a bond fund manager.

I was talking about investing in a real-estate development vs. a municipal bond. You were talking about investing in a bond fund. A 10% return on a bond fund is achievable (though very optimistic), but there is risk introduced that just isn't there in straight-up bonds.

You seemed to want to argue that a 10% return with high risk vs. a 10% return with low risk is a no-brainer. Unfortunately, it's not a realistic scenario. There simply isn't a common way to get a guaranteed return of 10% at the drop of a hat.

Let me know if that's not what you're arguing. Either way, why would a real-estate developer want to switch to becoming a securities investor? Are you suggesting if things get too tough, they'd drop out of the real estate business?

I wasn't condescending. I was astounded. If my tone rubbed you the wrong way, I apologize. Please try to keep to the core of my response: Your example including a 10% return on a bond is unrealistic (if that's what you meant). You're essentially creating a straw man.